Forum:Mission templates
I've noticed that a number of templates pertaining to missions have been put up in regards to certain missions in regards to WoL. I'm...a bit lost as to their function. Or, more specifically, what that function is in regards to what that function is apart from reiterating what is already given via sources. Saying that mission x belongs to mission series y is fine on the mission page-it's gameplay gameplay based. But in the articles that link to these sources, it doesn't really have any bearing. Sometimes these types of templates are necessary-the ones for Ghost or beta material is useful, as the linked source doesn't always convey the ambiguity. However, the mission templates effectively break in-universe writing and are denoting sources that say exactly the same thing (the same goes for the Alternity template).--Hawki 08:50, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Edit: The templates might make a more effective dictation of optional canon than the branch templates for HotS and LotV stuff, which I doubt will have corroberating canon. Still, since the WoL stuff does have such a thing, the mootness remains.--Hawki 09:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) "Gameplay gameplay" ... a lot of repetition there. Makes it a bit unclear. Anyway, points in order: # Not everyone knows about the Behind the Scenes DVD, and most people who bought the game did not buy the Collector's Edition. Visitors to the site might be confused as to why we regard missions that they've skipped as "canon". (Plenty of visitors do not visit the canon page.) This is why the templates refer to the DVD pointing out the "canon" storyline. It's also a handy guide as to why we put mission information in a certain order (eg why do we have Lhassir defending Bel'shir before defending Xil... you don't know that from the game, which makes referencing missions a pointless way of putting that information in chronological order... but the DVD holds that info. Speaking of which: that's still unclear on the Lhassir page, so expect a few edits there soon.) It's all about storyline, and has got almost nothing to do with gameplay. # The sources do not indicate or clarify canon or ambiguity. They just say which mission the information is from. The DVD holds the extra information. # People who play through the game won't necessarily know which missions are optional and which ones aren't, especially if they played the artifact missions last. # Plenty of people do not consider Alternity canon. While we disagree, we can at least make it easy for them to know when material is being taken from Alternity. (Spending time on other fansites will let you know information like this.) # We already have a template for branching canon (eg Ghost of a Chance vs Breakout), which is a bit different. # Heart of the Swarm has been confirmed to have a branching storyline. The description of Legacy of the Void (pick this faction instead of that faction) has essentially been confirmed to do the same thing. # The DVD is pretty vague, and I have still yet to see those interludes anywhere other than Youtube, despite having the DVD. This is sort of a compromise; it lets people know that the information is optional, still canon, and why we think this is so. # We had problems previously with telling people what is canon, but without being clear where we got that information from (or which of various canons we're picking, etc). For instance, many of the previous timeline calculations were correct, but without information on how months were calculated, we were leaving visitors confused, and that fueled edit wars too. That's why year articles now have to explain how calculations were made (usually in notes sections) instead of just saying "March 2500 ... you figure it out". This is the same kind of thing. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:46, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Seems responses can be easily grouped: *People don't know about a lot of things-novels, expansions, maps, even the original games effectively given the time and generation gap. I don't see a reason for double standards for the dvd.--Hawki 13:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) **This directly impacts on information taken from the game, so yes, it needs to be treated differently. Also, it's vague, another reason to treat differently. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) *The sources link to where ambiguity is clarified (e.g. the dvd page).--Hawki 13:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) **Most of the time they weren't, and reference links weren't obvious enough IMO. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) *The optional nature of missions is a gameplay aspect. It's information relevant to gameplay articles, but not relevant for narrative ones.--Hawki 13:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) **Given that Blizzard had previously said the opposite, I disagree. ***"In regards to Wings of Liberty, Blizzard does not discuss choices made by the player and these choices will not carry on into Heart of the Swarm.Dustin Browder, Chris Sigaty, StarCraft Legacy staff. 2010-04-22. April 19th Wings of Liberty Fansite QA Session. StarCraft Legacy. Accessed 2010-04-23. Blizzard decided not to branch the story based off player choices.Was there ever any plan or had you ever discussed having the story branch off more based off the player’s choices? We did, and there were a couple of factors that went into why we decided not to go that route. One of them, of course, was simply the cinematics we’d have to do. If we had a really widely varying game, we’d have to create multiple end cinematics, and if we wanted those to be pre-renders, that wouldn’t have been feasibly possible for us. At that point, they could have been in-game cutscenes, of course, which I think look pretty good. That’s an option we could have chosen. But the second factor is more of a creative choice. We’re even now struggling with this a little bit with what has happened in Wings of Liberty. There isn’t really a canon. We felt like a lot of our players and we ourselves wanted to know what happened. We wanted to have that sense of story. While other games – Mass Effect being a great example – do embrace that sort of player-chosen story, and that’s really one of the core hooks for their entire game – that’s really what their game is about – we didn’t feel like that made as much sense for our game. We felt like people want to know, “How did StarCraft end?” not “Which ending did you get?” Dustin Browder, Phil Kollar. 2010-09-19. Afterwords: StarCraft II. Game Informer. Accessed 2010-09-21." PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) *Plenty of people don't consider EU material to be canon regardless of its nature. It's a universal trait for any media which has expanded beyond a single medium. Alternity doesn't warrant special catering to public oppinion.--Hawki 13:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) **I would suggest visiting other fansites before making such comments. There's no problem with customer service. Also, Alternity does contradict some other sources in a confusing way (as in sometimes it seems right, sometimes it seems wrong). At least having the template makes it easy to follow up on all that info whenever better confirmation comes. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) *HotS and LotV do have branching canon and in all likelihood, will have to be specified. WoL however has one clarifying source and if Activision has its way, will have a second.--Hawki 13:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC) **WoL has vague clarifying sources that actually contradict what Blizzard had said earlier. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 14:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC) Don't want to draw this out-bad experience with these kinds of debates. Anyway, while I can stomach the new impositions, I think that: *The x missions template should always be used instead of the branching template, as the latter leaves large gaps in text. The missions template is less imposing.--Hawki 13:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC) We're doing that now. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC) *Alternate storylines should be regulated to notes, such as Tosh and Nova. It simply cuts up the text too much to have both parts in narrative and regulation to notes fits our modus operandi better.--Hawki 13:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC) On this I disagree. Blizzard itself disagrees when it comes to canon (as quoted above); while the DVD supports one branch being canon, Blizzard statements say the opposite, and we now take clarity into account when doing canon "calculations". If and until we get clarity, the two hold almost the same amount of weight. Of course, if Blizzard clarifies the situation further, it would be easy to track down the templates and move non-canon info to the notes section; this is a lot easier than putting things into and then out of notes. But if Blizzard doesn't do so, things should stay the way they are. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC) *Yes, I've visited other fansites, but that's beside the point. What is the point is that there will always be some level of contradiction between material. What differs is the scale of contradiction. Alternity has its issues, such as Raynor's timeframe of being a general, but this is no greater a scale than anything else. It's been mentioned before indirectly, it's been referenced in a sense via Raynor's anti-zerg bio actions, so while it's effectively isolated canon, I don't think it's as problematic as it's been made out to be.--Hawki 13:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC) Raynor's bio could just as easily have been referring to the comic. Or both, since the Alliance appears to be a very loose association. As for the scale, I'm taking that into account as well as how much attention it draws. ("Squeaky wheel" gets the grease.) But maybe the template can go for most pages, as long as the category remains. A lot of articles have to bend themselves out of shape as material gets referenced from both Alternity and other sources. (E-9 rifle, etc.) It probably needs to remain for pages such as Dylar IV though. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC) *Need another change in canon policy for the templates. Also might have to do the same for Enslavers, as we're effectively setting double standards with the new modus operandi.--Hawki 13:03, October 2, 2010 (UTC) It's already been updated, including the Enslavers articles. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:20, October 2, 2010 (UTC) References